Yes, I fully agree that being nice to the person shouldn’t be conflated with being nice to very incorrect arguments. It’s tricky, but it’s possible to be respectful of the person while not taking their claims seriously if they’re basically either trolling or badly mistaken. One approach I’ve seen work is to ask for clarification along the lines of “help me understand” and take that seriously. Then you’re repeating back their claims and arguments without strawmanning them, but revealing them to be as weak as they are. Just gently voicing your suspicions like “I wonder if you genuinely believe this or if you’re voicing this to create an exciting discussion” etc without getting engaged in an argument on their intent or anything else.
This isin’t foolproof; dealing in good faith and good intent with someone who is not dealing with you in that way is a tricky art. But engaging in the style of ebate your opponent wants you to have is often visibly a very bad move.
If your position is much better supported by logic and evidence, you do not want to engage in an emotional battle; the outcome of that is much more random and driven by a set of skills you might not have developed.
Being nice to the individual makes it hard to convince people you’re the bad guy on an emotional level, and thus bias them against your positions and arguments.
Yes, I fully agree that being nice to the person shouldn’t be conflated with being nice to very incorrect arguments. It’s tricky, but it’s possible to be respectful of the person while not taking their claims seriously if they’re basically either trolling or badly mistaken. One approach I’ve seen work is to ask for clarification along the lines of “help me understand” and take that seriously. Then you’re repeating back their claims and arguments without strawmanning them, but revealing them to be as weak as they are. Just gently voicing your suspicions like “I wonder if you genuinely believe this or if you’re voicing this to create an exciting discussion” etc without getting engaged in an argument on their intent or anything else.
This isin’t foolproof; dealing in good faith and good intent with someone who is not dealing with you in that way is a tricky art. But engaging in the style of ebate your opponent wants you to have is often visibly a very bad move.
If your position is much better supported by logic and evidence, you do not want to engage in an emotional battle; the outcome of that is much more random and driven by a set of skills you might not have developed.
Being nice to the individual makes it hard to convince people you’re the bad guy on an emotional level, and thus bias them against your positions and arguments.